
Let’s start with the fashion. Here’s some images from a group that perfectly merges anarcho-hooliganism with mansy style and mansy flair. Os Cangaceiros were a Brazilian band of well… bandits that fought against the greedly landlords, stole from the rich and, naturally, gave to the poor. They also happened to love fashion, apparently to be a Cangaciero aside from the prereq of the thirst for blood and theft, you had to be adept at sewing and accessorizing. No joke, they were known for neurotically sewing colorful ribbons, bits of metal, coins, and anything shiny, really, to their garments, (a little passé but a classic in any century). Talk about haphazard accessories! As well, the most famous of the group, Lampião, was known for using an excessive amount of stolen French perfume; and incidentally, Os Cangaceiros were responsible for popularizing the xaxado dance, which I think was the 19th century Brazilian equivalent of the stanky leg…
Oh and speaking of dances, you’ve got to check out this video from Sgt Sass by way of Israel… it sort of changed my life, well at least how much I snap!
But yeah, Os Cangaceiros fashion is pretty amazing, and though their tale ends in tragedy they helped to lay the foundation for the Landless Movement, which is still going strong, as well as inspire generations of insurrectionists, illegalists, anarchists and hooligans. And I hate to say I told you so about the fashion tip, but seriously. I mean these locas were the real deal.
In fact, as a testament to their legacy, I recently read an amazing [article] posting on aaarg (heart heart) about a group of self-proclaimed French hooligans in the 1980′s and 90′s named Os Cangaceiros, just for clarity I’ll refer to them as the French Cangaceiros. Up until this article, I must confess I hadn’t a dream of a whisper that they had existed and considering how incredible, ridiculous, and sort of mind boggling they were, it’s really surprising more people aren’t talking about them… My favorite action they did I think is squatting a luxury condo, when asked why a luxury condo they simply replied that they had been enticed with luxury all their lives and they wanted to see it played out! When the police came to evict them, they had barricaded the doors with steel and in the hours that it took to weld through or whatever, they called their friends in the community who started a protest surrounding the cops who inevitably gave up.

okay, that is literally a parrot on his shoulder! weee birdles!
The article is faaantastic as well, I think it gives a truly balanced look at what hooliganism adds to anarchism, as well as its short comings and lessons to be learned. For example, in the article is an account from a former French Cangaceiro/a, who discusses some of their successes and failures in dealing with the media. Most of their work was done against prisons, for example sabotaging railroads in solidarity with prison riots, but since they were mostly involved with banditry and the like they couldn’t go bragging about it so they naturally relied on the media to inform the people, which is the case for all acts of symbolic property destruction. But the cops told the media to not publish any of their cray cray, which effectively made those types of actions moot.

In contrast, their most popular and successful action, in their own eyes, involved stealing the plans of a new prison that was going up and publishing them in a pamphlet called 13,000 belles, since the new prison was to have 13,000 new cells. Instead of their usual guns ablaze (literally) tactics, this time they just brought up that there are a ton of these leeching architects and other profiteers rubbing their hands as the poor are locked away and then sat back and let the people decide what was too be done, albeit with a sketchiness that no one other than a hooligan would bring. They took the pamphlet, discovered weaknesses where people could escape (li.ter.a.lly) and circulated it in cafes, and basically everywhere, totally circumnavigating the press and creating what the media call “a buzz” that was impossible to ignore. When the media did take note, they had no choice but to side with the Cangaceiros since the entire city had as well, and the media ended up printing unabridged letters from the collective, complimenting them on their organizational skills (what?!) and basically painting them as modern Robin Hoods, romantic outlaws and friends of the people.

Yo. Read the article, they’re amahzing… dancing on the roofs of prisons, traveling around the world sabotaging the state, and thousands of other pranks and acts of grifter goodness and then getting away (that’s right) scot free. I mean what group of roving bandits have you ever heard about getting away?! Even Robin Hood had to sell out to the state eventually, not to mention the endless list of martyred hooligans… sigh.

WHICH BRINGS ME TO MY POINT.
Everybody’s talking about insurrectionism these days, mumble mumble catastrophe of totality mumble love in the wreckage mumble mumble burning riot hallway dumpster etc etc etc. You hear it e.ver.y.where. I mean, ever since I picked up Killing King Abacus a million years ago, I’ve been enduring this insurrectionist mumbling, I mean seriously, have you ever talked with Texas? Talk about mumblecore.
But enunciation aside, I read The Coming Insurrection and The Call, by the Invisible Committee and have to say, I’m deeeply disturbed… well more deeply annoyed than anything, especially with their crappy name, “their” royal we, and most of all their neocommunism.* I really don’t want to get into all my criticisms, but at this point I’ve brought up insurrectionism mainly for how it informs hooliganism.
![cangaco[1] cangaco[1]](http://boulevardier4eva.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/cangaco11.jpg?w=490)
I do like a good bit about the Invisible Committee’s writings, their disgust for radical purity and the discussion of the anarchist scene turning into a new code of behaviors, but their pipe dream that insurrection, or even hooliganism, is the only form of valid radicalism just plain smacks of privilege. There are moments, of course, to riot, but not all riots aid the destruction of the state. Sometimes, in the case of the ’68 DNC, cops riot, or other times fascists riot, bigots burn dumpsters and barricade hallways, the kkk smashes windows… there’s nothing liberating in these acts, other than adrenaline, they are just tactics, nothing more. And seriously, we all know who is most attracted to riots… cicgendered strait white boys, I wonder why!

What is liberating is what the French Cangaceiros, or the o.g. Os Cangaceiros did, which is create a sustained hooliganism, take these tactics and string them together in a meaningful way. This sustained hooliganism can’t be taught in a book! And it certainly can’t be achieved through guilting people with propagandistic theory! Both the above examples were of hooligans turned radical, not the other way around. It’s actually pretty offensive to think that some fools can say, ‘hey be a hooligan, go break a window and steal for a living, it’s no thing.’ It is a thing! People are getting killed, or their lives are being ruined everyday who don’t succeed at living the hooligan dream, and then some worms living in books decide to take it on? What both Os Cangaceiros groups demonstrate is that it took criminals, genuine day one criminals to succeed at being bandits long enough to make an impact. And as much as I wish these tactics could immediately dismantle the power of the state like out of Harry Potter or something, they don’t, and the hundreds of thousands of people imprisoned right now are a testament to that.

When it comes to hooliganism, I think you can either be an anarchist or a hooligan, you just can’t be both. You can be a sketchy or grifty anarchist or even a sassy pirate-type anarchist or something, but being a hooligan is a career path! And the goals of each are vastly different, though both necessary. As I see it, the goals of hooliganism are the creation of inspirational moments that transcend all of the state’s mythology and physical force and the beauty of these moments in turn inspires people to rise up themselves. It’s a sort of shooting the moon scenario, but you’ve only got to be one smooth operator otherwise you’re fucked! The goal of the anarchist, the radical theorist, the organizer, the farmer, the artist, the feminist, the sex worker etc! etc! is more based in therapy. The therapy that gives us the strength to carry on and understand and fight by any means necessary against the oppression and alienation that surrounds us. That therapy creates the conditions for hooligans to even begin their struggle, shares the stories of inspirational hooligans and creates the community that they fall back on for support. And it’s a cliché, but we really do need each other. Well, honestly, hooligans need anarchists a little more, but who’s counting!

The Os Cangaceiros called them coiteiros, people that helped out the Cangaceiros and who the Cangaceiros were bandit-ing for in the first place. Without them, the Cangaceiros (o.g. or French) would never have lasted a day. It’s that relationship, between the hooligans and the coiteros that should be further explored, how can we create communities that foster hooligans that will in turn keep the community in mind when they are out hooligan-ing? And how can the goals of hooligans and the goals of anarchists coalesce to create a situation where both radical romanticism and therapy based tactics work hand in hand?
This was a fantastic article, Adam. I had read about the French gang before but didn’t know about the originals or their fine fashion sense. I’m excited to read more about them!
I am struck by the fact that the kinds of insurrectionist hooligans who make no demands and squat luxury condos (or publish Fire to the Prisons)… do in fact have at least one concrete goal — and that is the total destruction of prisons. The French gang made dozens of attacks on prison construction sites that included adding something to the dry concrete so that it would never set. They also violently assaulted prison architects and then wrote them letters to explain why.
As for your thoughts on anarchists and hooligans, I don’t see why one can’t be both. Refusals of identity aside, I have often thought anarchist was a word that says ‘we care nothing for this world and want to destroy it,’ as in A Warning to Those Who Stole Our Word. http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=200907141213567
(although I think that essay is stupidly “we’re better than you” in tone)
Finally, I take issue with this:
“And seriously, we all know who is most attracted to riots… cicgendered strait white boys, I wonder why!”
We could refute this historically–most ‘political’ (not racist or sports) riots in US history have been composed of black bodies, including recent history (LA, Cincinnati, Oakland)–or that the fiercest rioting in Pittsburgh last month was the queers and trannies of the Bash Back! bloc.
But I would also argue that statements like the one you make reinforce a mythology of macho rioting, which both feminizes passivity and constructs riots as a territory of men. It is a mythology that I, for one, am dedicated to smashing. (wink wink)
P.S. http://gendermutiny.wordpress.com/2009/09/22/hell-hath-no-fury-a-chronology-of-genderfuck-insurrection/
hi hi there a hooligan!
So we talked a little bit about this the other night but sometimes it’s easier to think in print so I’ll put it down here as well. First off, I was reeeally hesitant to make the hooligan OR anarchist distinction that I did in this article, in fact, I thought about it for a good day before I printed it just to make sure it was what I really thought. The thing is that, anyway I look at it, things seem to point to a pronounced and distinct difference between the two AND that they are both mutually dependent on the other for success. It really boils down to tactics, hooligans depend on utter secrecy and collective insularity, yet it is obvious that extreme security culture is a detriment to building community. Communities are built on trust and visibility, honest and emotional communication between near strangers which creates a deeper bond that can replace the capitalist, monetary bond. Hooligans are also completely completely dependent on these genuine anti capitalist communities to support them in a myriad of ways and in turn, these communities are inspired when hooligans hit the mark, so to speak.
I’m not sure it’s a discussion of whether or not hooligans should have goals, even political goals, more than once again a question of tactics. Anarchist communities can sit down with some stranger and simply talk it out, figure out what is going on and move on from there. Hooligans simply can’t, because of security culture and what not. A lot, if not every, insurrectionist I know feels the need to belittle this aspect of anarchism, the aspect of communication. This is where I become extremely weirded out by their comfort in using communist rhetoric and propaganda tactics. Because are they really talking about hooligans or are they talking about Bolshevism? I think it’s the latter and want to make the distinction here and now that I’m pro-hooligan and anti-neocommunist.
As for riots and cisgendered white boys, I stand by that, though will clarify and say that it is actually the fetishization of riots that is enacted in privilege. Making the riot as the gold standard of radicalism is nothing more than a classification for determining who is macho enough, legal enough, or able bodied enough to punch that proverbial cop. I should have been a little clearer though, because you are absolutely right, queers and people of color have created the most successful usages of the riots, at least in terms of anarchist goals, though I think it is undeniable that there is a massive depressing side in the history of the riot where it’s used in terms of bigotry, homophobia, statism and fascism. I guess you could make a distinction between vigilante justice and the queer riots you are celebrating (which by the way is an inspiring history!) though in the end if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck… meaning riots as a tactic don’t do it for me, people want to plan for a riot and strategize but in the end, riots are just one element in our struggle against the state, and not a very good one at that.
But ya ya ya! love you! keep it uuuuuuuuuuup! xoxox!
ps gender mutiny is sssssssick! ch.ch.ch.check it out!
Okay, so I talked about some of this with a friend, and I have a few more thoughts.
One thing that came up was your idea of rioting as a tactic. Certainly rioting has been used by fascists, racists, etc. Certainly the riot, by this definition, is not ‘radical’ in itself. But this friend and I talked about how there’s something about a riot that transcends tactical considerations. Sure, we can plan or organize a riot as tactic, we can look at one after the fact as a tactic, but in the space of the riot itself, there is a feeling that is quite beyond our normal lives of calculated risks, strategies, and campaigns. There is a feeling of “I can do anything,” and feelings empowerment, elation, loss-of-self, and actually being alive for once. It is, perhaps, something like liberation. Maybe people are organizing towards riots, or insurrection, not for tactical reasons but out of a need, a desire, or for those who’ve experienced it before, an addiction. Are we addicted to rioting? Yeah, we are.
Given that, I’d even go on to suggest that a racist riot, lynch mob, etc is something very different. Rather than opening a space of liberation, it is controlled by a common ideology, specifically an ideology of hate. It is a mob in the pejorative sense of the word–its component individuals are brainwashed. Now, a riot composed largely of anarchists is arguably similar because it is also organized under a common ideology. I’ll leave that question unsettled.
“Making the riot as the gold standard of radicalism is nothing more than a classification for determining who is macho enough, legal enough, or able bodied enough to punch that proverbial cop.”
I’m not so sure. I’ve heard enough people on both sides of the debate throwing around the pejorative ‘privilege’ to explain why the other fetishes (or avoids) rioting. I’ve heard the argument that privileged anarcho-liberals have never faced real struggle in their daily lives and so have no need to fight or riot. And I’ve heard it the other way around. The insanity of both sides calling the other privileged is a major reason why I’m no longer interested in the word ‘privilege’ as it’s used in debate to undermine the validity of someone’s position on tactics, strategy, politics, whatever.
I think the intensity and absurdity of this debate stems from people’s intense disappointment in finding that people who they thought they had affinity with don’t want to throw down in the same ways. That feeling is *such* a bummer. Hopefully this disappointment can be used as fuel to build affinity, to find each other.
I like the idea of mutual aid relationships between hooligans and ‘aboveground’ anarchists, and it’s true that security culture and open relationships with neighbors are both needed. Whether or not they’re mutually exclusive… I have a response about that but I am done with this comment for the moment.
Dang, A Hooligan you just took the words from my mouth.
I totally see what you’re saying about tactic vs situation in relation to the riot, and I am definitely interested in understanding better why we feel so elated in those moments… I certainly have fond memories of being in these situations and love the feeling of getting carried away, and I would also add that riots and similar situations also have the power to coalesce a group and make us feel closer to our co-conspirators than anywhere else.
My response to that is that I’m not sure that those feelings that we have when rioting are necessarily positive, in and of themselves. I’ve also read accounts of murderers that have confessed similar feelings of loss-of-self, empowerment and feeling truly alive afterwards. As well, soldiers talk about the collective bond created under situations of stress that kept them together for years to come and those situations are created exclusively through military hierarchies, and can create trauma so deep that some vets have a difficult time ever seeing the humanity in others again, meaning the end definitely does not justify the means. Furthermore, I would wager that racists, cops and bigots would feel the same feelings of empowerment and elation in their riots, and that those feelings are probably more derived from a surge of personal power, group power and egoism rather than anything else. Not to get heavy handed, but if you’ve seen pictures of lynch mobs, they are smiling and laughing, it’s the most disturbing thing I’ve ever seen…
That is not to say that I am equating rioting with murder obviously, just that I think that those feelings can be misleading and shouldn’t determine whether a situation is liberating or not. Can we be sure that those feelings are an exception to our conditioning, rather than a direct correlation to the superman mythology that we’re raised to believe in? The fascist mythology that we’re better, faster, stronger than everyone else, and just waiting for that moment to be freed from all social conventions and seize control?
I’m not sure either way, though I obviously have my misgivings. I still think that the riot is a useful tactic given the right situation, but it is definitely not the best that we have and the way we glorify it is probably counterproductive in the long run. It would probably be a good idea for anarchists to have a moratorium on riots for a year or two just to develop alternative tactics and an alternative image in the press rather than that one kid we always see.
As for the discussion of privilege, I think both the situations you presented are clearly examples of privilege… On the one hand, I completely agree, anarcho-liberals (what a term, btw!) are more apt to spend all their energy pursuing the same tired projects and criticizing everyone else rather than try something new themselves, and on the other hand, insurrectionists, (anarcho-conservatives?), are painting a picture of radicalism that directly excludes a good many people and using flippant language that doesn’t match what they’re asking/demanding of people.
I think privilege is a very important tool in understanding our shortcomings, though it can definitely be overused. For example I think a lot of people are apt to think that we can escape our privilege or that privilege is just pejorative, but I see it more as a way to navigate the world and recognize when we are being insensitive or blind to other people’s plights and when we have opportunities that other’s do not. I think we have to acknowledge the various privileges that we have over each other and especially in terms of constructing our messages, so we can create a message that is as accessible as possible and doesn’t needlessly trod on people’s pain.
Thanks for the lovely input though, it is so great to have a discussion on the internet that isn’t belligerent! you’re amazing, by the by! yesssssssssss!
the main propose of our guys, i mean, the original cangaceiros was VENGEANCE. vengeance as a product. breaking the idea of state justice only. they were no robin hoods and we r proud of them anyway, symbol of the ressistance of our ppl, not brazilians as well, but north eastern brazilians or “lizzards” as the crapy south-center call us.
a verse from lampeão’s journal:
se reuniu o pai velho com os 3 irmãos
e eu disse deixe estar e bote a questão pro meu lado
que o meu rifle é um bom advogado.
the old father and the three brothers were united
and i told let it be and give me that question
cos my rifle is a good lawyer.
amei seu texto ecrito, alias muito bem escrito, fluido, amei a critica, sua visao das coisas , lindo!